That Transgendered Individuals Should Use the Bathroom They Identify With

I’d like to thank cooldudebro for this challenge, it’s a fascinating one since it’s clearly been lost before by LucasTheLlama to this very challenger. But, with all due respect, I feel that the argument failed to elucidate on certain facts which will confirm that the affirmative case, “That Transgendered Individuals ShouldUse the Bathroom They Identify With” is the correct one.

But I’m not here to dig up old hatchets or to pick up where the last debate left off, this is a different debate, and I will treat it with fresh eyes and a fresh mind, so that we can begin anew, and I hope that not only my debate partner, but particular anyone reading this debate for themselves does the same. So, enough with the preamble.

I like to start by defining terms some.

For the sake of this debate, a “Transgendered Individuals” will be: Persons that have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, such that they feel compelled to transition so as to identify as the gender that is non-correlative to the sex they were assigned at birth.

And “the Bathroom They Identify With” will refer to: One of either of the division of toilet facilities divided to separate male and female patrons, which is designed to accommodate persons of the sex that correlates with a transgendered individual’s identified gender.

As for “should use” that relates to my Burden of Proof, which as per the rules, I outline as follows: “To prove my case, I must provide evidence that, by not permitting Transgendered Individuals to use the Bathroom They Identify With, we cause greater risk, upset, disharmony and suffering than we would otherwise. Meaning that, to avoid this risk, upset, disharmony and suffering we should concede the affirmative case for this debate.”

There are a couple of reasons I believe I can meet this burden of proof, but my first point is that It causes distress to the Transgendered Individual.

According to a fact sheet from the American Psychiatric Association (Publishing division) “[gender dysphoria] causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”[1] I chose this factsheet as it refers to the DSM-V, the leading authority in mental health and psychology. This factsheet explains that gender non-conformity is not in and of itself a mental illness, but the stress suffered due to aspects of a person that do not correspond with their identified gender is. In fact, a transgendered person can live and function as a neurotypical member of society, if their gender dysphoria is treated. And there are available treatments, according to that same factsheet “treatment options for this condition include counseling, cross-sex hormones, gender reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired gender.”.[1]

So, to begin with, by refusing to allow transgendered individuals to use the bathroom appropriate to their identified gender, we hinder their ability to be a fully functional and mentally well member of society.

My second point is that, after transition, making transgenderered individuals use the bathroom which is notthe Bathroom which they Identify with causes distress in other people that use those bathrooms.

When a Transgendered Individual transitions from the gender associated with the sex they were assigned at birth to the gender they identify with, this process involves several steps. As explained by Transhealth.org (a website created for the Transgender Health Information Program), transgender transition “refers to the process during which trans people may change their gender expression and/or bodies to reflect their gender, including changes in physical appearance (hairstyle, clothing), behaviour (mannerisms, voice, gender roles), identification (name, pronoun, legal details), and/or medical interventions (hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery).”[2] Transgendered people, whether just beginning to transition or having transitioned for months, seek to look like their identified gender, and do all they can to achieve that. In fact, as I’ve previously explained, they can suffer from dysphoria if they do not present an outward expression of their identity. So, they will look like the gender they identify with, even if their biology does not. We do look at the people around us in the bathroom, but only to navigate our way to the facilities, and I do accept that some transgendered women may have a prominent adam’s apple, and some transgendered men may have feminine hips. However, people going to the bathroom won’t be playing “spot the difference” with other patrons, people enter bathrooms with a goal – to evacuate their bowels and bladders. If, at a glance, someone appears to be the same gender, they will blend in. If, however, we do as the negative would imply, and section these people to the bathroom that is not the one they identify with, someone with a miniskirt, long hair, make-up and stockings were forced to enter the men’s bathroom, it _would_ cause distraction. Just as someone with a beard, muscles, men’s boots and a deep voice would cause a commotion by entering the women’s bathroom.

And this would happen, because it’s how transgendered individuals transition, by dressing to fit their gender. To expect otherwise would cause the same distress I mentioned earlier regarding dysphoria.

But more than anything else, the part of this debate I do not understand is the notion that transgendered people would cause some form of disquiet in the bathroom. As I've already mentioned, at a glance most people wouldn't even know they were in the bathroom. The only difference between a transgendered person and a cisgendered person would be their genitals. But, in a bathroom setting, you wouldn't see a transgendered person's genitals. After all, women's bathrooms are comprised entirely of stalls and whilst men's bathrooms do have urinals, due to mechanical issues regarding the female urethra transgendered men would not have easy use of urinals and so would need to use the stall. Even ignoring that, from a psychological standpoint, transgendered people would not want to have others see their genitals, as it would trigger their dysphoria.

I can see no reason why allowing a transgendered person to use the bathroom appropriate to their gender would cause any concern; and I can see several reasons why if you didn't it would cause a great deal of distress and confusion.

So, for those reasons, I submit that Transgendered Individuals should use the Bathroom they Identify with. But, this is just my opening statement. I have more that could be said, but they are contingent upon what my debate partner has to say, and as I said, I am not here to write a sequel to that first debate, so I would not want to just assume his point of view and argue against a phantom opponent when my actual opponent deserves the right to speak for himself.Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to the negative side's opening arguments.

| Speak Roundcooldudebro(CON)First, let's define exactly what a transgender is."of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth" (1)Note: This DOES NOT mean that they need to have the genitals of the gender they want to identify with. They do not need hormone treatments. They can simply "identify" themselves as transgender without having the parts of the gender they say they identify with. This leads into my first case.Case 1: It Isn't Something That Can Be RegulatedMy opponent said that if we did not allow transgenders into the bathroom they identify with, we would be putting literal men into the bathroom of women. He then goes on to say they don't use the bathroom due to fear. He then goes on to say they already use the bathroom. All these contradictions not only make his case unclear; but serve to further make his argument seem faulty.However, he does not understand that one can simply say they are transgender and go into the bathroom of their choice. For instance, a man who claims to be transgender can go into the female restroom just to peek on women. In fact, this has already happened."In 2012, Ontario amended its Human Rights Code — dubbed the “bathroom bill” by critics — to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination. Family advocates argued at the time that the bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.

In the United States, problems have already surfaced from allowing a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to enter a woman’s area. As an example, in 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. So “Colleen” Francis exposed his genitalia through the glass window in a sauna to teenage girls on a high school swim team. But police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.

Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that it “didn’t take a brain surgeon to predict that letting men into women’s bathrooms and other private spaces would eventually lead to sexual assaults. I wish we didn’t have to say ‘I told you so,’ but Ontario’s party leaders and MPPs were warned that the transsexual ‘Bathroom Bill’ endangered women and needed to be defeated. Of course this lunatic law could only make it easier for rapists and peeping toms to prey on female victims while masquerading as ‘transgendered’.”

Calling for a repeal of the law, Fonseca warned that “If this dangerous law is not repealed, we will only see a rise in male predators attacking women in spaces where they deserve the right to privacy like bathrooms, change rooms and women’s shelters.” (2)

"A man who attempted to use a women’s locker room at a Seattle swimming pool told employees he had the right to use the bathroom of his choice under state law.

David Takami with the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department said a man arrived at the Evans Pool in Greenlake Monday afternoon and paid to use the lap pool.

Takami said the man then entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt in front of a local girls swimming team, which had just finished practicing. Several parents and other women using the locker room became alarmed and alerted pool staff.

When staff members confronted the man, he left the locker room and went swimming.

When he was done, Takami said the man went back into the women’s locker room and was again asked to leave. The man resisted, telling staff members the law had changed and he now had the right to use the locker room of his choice, according to Takami.

The man was likely referring to a new rule created by the Washington State Human Rights Commission that requires buildings open to the public to allow transgender people to use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with.

The man left the pool and staff members didn’t call police.

A similar incident occurred in Olympia in 2012, when a 45-year-old biological male who calls himself Colleen Francis lounged naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six. According to the police report an eyewitness stated, “There were girls 6 to 18 years of age and they were not used to seeing individuals in situations like this.” But the facility gave him the right to continue using its facilities as he wished.

Those who oppose adding gender identity to non-discrimination ordinances and civil rights legislation have long warned the ordinances would be used specifically for that purpose." (3)

Should young women and men (for the reverse happening) have to deal with the constant risk of being raped just to fulfill the desire of less than .3% of the population? (4)

Let me ask you a question. Does the needs of a small minority trump the needs a large majority? Should a very small group of people's comfort have prevalence over a very large group of people's comfort? Should me and 38% of other conservatives out there have to feel uncomfortable for .3% of people? (7) Should these women have to be in constant worry of being raped due to this? If you answered no, you are against transgenders using using the restroom of which they identify with.Transgenders can easily use their own restroom at home. The comfort of many trump the comfort of a few.

Rebuttal To Case 1:

I would refute how being transgender is indeed a mental illness but it is not relevant in this debate. We are debating whether transgenders should use the restrooms they identify with. We are not arguing about whether or not it is ethical to classify transgenders as having a mental illness.

A study which studied transgenders found out that transgenders do commit suicide much more than the normal population even after surgery. (6) They go on to conclude that while actual surgery may treat gender dysphoria in the way psychologists define it as of now, it does not help the individual in the long term. If even surgery does not help the majority of transgenders who decide to get it, how would bathroom use help?

You also exclude the fact that not all transgenders need to be under hormone therapy.

Rebuttal to Case 2:

Before we can accept your case I valid, I would like to see statistics on how many people that identify as transgender are under active hormone therapy. You lead your case to sound like the majority if not all transgenders are on hormone therapy. People in my examples of sexual misconduct and people who fall under my definition may not be on hormone therapy.

The way legislation is being shaped now, anyone can easily call themselves transgender and go into their restroom they "identify" with.

I would like you to answer a key question. For those who may have just begun their transition is it ethical to turn them away from the bathroom they identify with? Even if we throw out my definition entirely and stick with yours, anyone can claim to be on the beginning of their transition and gain bathroom access of their choice. This includes the sexual deviants who have publically displayed themselves nude with intact genitalia of men to the opposite sex which contained children. So, if we throw out my definition, how would you identify actual transgenders from predators like the ones from my examples? Would you require paperwork or branding of some sort to be checked every time someone used the bathroom if they looked like the opposite sex? That would only single them out more.

If you do not have a solution, it is then unethical to chance the innocence of kids and the virtue of adults for less than .3% of the population.

In Conclusion:

Bathroom access would not help transgenders

These laws would endanger people in bathrooms

It is unethical to say the wants of the minority trumps the needs of the few

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

Mhm you just keep telling yourself that at night my friend. I did not see the need to write a new argument when I wanted to save new info and sources to till the next round to add for support. If my claims were so easily refuted as you claim it to be, you would gladly accept another debate to get an easy win. This does not sound like the graceful defeat of a man; this sounds like the pitiful whining of a child.

Posted 2016-10-19 04:38:35

Bi0Hazard@Kelnius
Gender is about identity, culture, and society, your biology isn't. There is biological sex, but that isn't the same.
I don't see why it matters if he uses the same arguments as a previous debate.

Posted 2016-10-17 22:18:15

Kelnius@Biohazard there are actually people who identify as dragons. That doesn't change the science.
And if you read the actual words of the debate, you'd see it was more than just "using the same arguments". @cooldudebro I was more interested in getting well than coming to edeb8.com, but even if I had I'm new to this site, I've never asked for a time extension so I had no idea it was an option.
As for debating with you again, I don't see that happening. You aren't a good debater. you won this debate by a technicality, based on copypasta response. If you're impressed by that, then I'm not impressed by you. Go argue with LucastheLlama's month old response again, if you like, because you never debated me.

Ask for a time extension if you're sick. If you'd like to lose again, let me challenge you again. Do you want that?

Posted 2016-10-16 09:50:13

Bi0HazardThey do exist. There are actually people who identify as agender.

CON's case was relevant to the debate topic, and if it was irrelevant, you could call him out on it instead of dwelling on about it like its BS in the comments section because he used some of the same arguments in another debate.
You forfeited, and that is too bad, I guess you will have to remember next time.

Posted 2016-10-12 00:33:16

Kelnius@BioHazard, they don't exist. Transgendered people have been validated scientifically as having testable hormonal, psychological and neurochemical differences, which are more akin to the opposite sex as opposed to their birth sex. There is no such scientific proof that self-proclaimed "agender" let alone "twogender" or "third gender" people have similar (or scientifically relevant) psychological or neurochemical differences.
So, no, these people don't exist. And even if they did, unless and until they express gender dysphoria, there's nothing wrong with them using their heteronormative sex's bathroom.

And it is ridiculous when someone responds to a debate with a reply that is entirely out of context. Copying and pasting? Sure, I did that to quote from those papers I listed, but I did that because those were [i]relevant to the context of my debate.[/i] Copying and pasting a debate response which doesn't even attempt to respond the the points made? That [b]is[/b] ridiculous. And if you don't see why, go back and read the actual debate. The claim made statements about me and my argument which I [i]did not make.[/i]

Posted 2016-10-11 13:17:34

Bi0Hazard@Kelnius
It isn't really ridiculous, you just didn't finish on time. There is time extensions.
I don't see anything wrong with a copy-paste of a debate you have done earlier, except for that it is self-plagiarism (if they didn't say they previously used it).
If you forfeit, you lose in this debate. It really isn't unfair or "fifteen-year old" of the opponent.

KelniusWhat the hell? When I recognized the "Colleen Francis" reference you made, I checked. Your rebuttal looks like a COPY-PASTE of the EXACT SAME debate you had with Lucas the Llama - you even included the same OP anime video!!
Not only did you refuse to actually respond to the points I made, and instead try to re-hash the same debate you had with someone else (even though, in my opening statement, I made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that I wanted a fresh start and a fresh debate), you then "won" this debate by default by including round forfeiture rules, winning on a technicality despite not actually putting forth a new argument, whereas I was otherwise occupied because I was sick.

I came here to argue an idea, not a fifteen-year old; and the thanks I get is that you DIDN'T EVEN TRY? Why are you even on this debate site, cooldudebro? Would it really have bothered you that much to have READ my claim before responding to it?

Posted 2016-10-10 09:26:12

KelniusYou also stated, and I quote "my opponent states we would be putting literal men into the bathroom of women. He then goes on to say they don't use the bathroom due to fear. He then goes on to say they already use the bathroom." - this is an outright lie. I never once, not ever, said "they don't use the bathroom due to fear", and it is ridiculous that you claim I did.

Posted 2016-10-10 09:22:18

KelniusThis is ridiculous that I lose a debate because I was sick. All of the cases you cited of people "entering the bathroom to peek on women" are not true. In most such cases, there is an innocent or unusual case, then a Christian lobby group gets ahold of the story and exaggerates it to demonize transgendered people, then the tabloid news media picks up on their propaganda and reports on it, then big news aggregates those reports, so as to gain money from the controversy it garners.

Posted 2016-10-10 09:15:39

Kelnius@BioHazard, there's no such thing as agender. But I would have needed an extension, I was sick last week.